assemble_prompt

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses that the output is a ready-to-paste context block destined for an LLM, which is the key behavioral trait. It does not address invalid-intent handling, size/truncation behavior, or how multiple slices are composed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the parameterization details; every clause earns its place with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a composite text-producing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description identifies the purpose and all intent variants but leaves the returned block's shape, slice composition, and failure modes unstated. Adequate to invoke, not complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by fully enumerating the valid intent values and the '<name>' parameterization syntax (mixin:, component:, theme:, recipe:), effectively compensating for the absent enum constraint in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Build) and resource (a ready-to-paste context block for an LLM consuming cia), and the intent enumeration conveys that this tool aggregates slices rather than fetching single items. It is clearly an assembly/composition tool, distinct from the many list_/get_/search_ siblings, though it never names an alternative to differentiate itself explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'Intent picks the slice' plus the enumerated intent values give clear guidance on how to parameterize a call, but there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no explicit comparison to the get_/list_/search_ siblings that fetch the same underlying data piecemeal.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.